%0 Journal Article
%T Co-enrollment of critically ill patients into multiple studies: patterns, predictors and consequences
%A Deborah Cook
%A Ellen McDonald
%A Orla Smith
%A Nicole Zytaruk
%A Diane Heels-Ansdell
%A Irene Watpool
%A Tracy McArdle
%A Andrea Matte
%A France Clarke
%A Shirley Vallance
%A Simon Finfer
%A Pauline Galt
%A Tim Crozier
%A Rob Fowler
%A Yaseen Arabi
%A Clive Woolfe
%A Neil Orford
%A Richard Hall
%A Neill KJ Adhikari
%A Marie-Clauide Ferland
%A John Marshall
%A Maureen Meade
%A The PROTECT Research Coordinators
%A PROTECT Investigators
%A Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group
%J Critical Care
%D 2013
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/cc11917
%X In an observational analysis of an international thromboprophylaxis trial in 67 ICUs, we examined the co-enrollment of critically ill medical-surgical patients into more than one study, and examined the clinical and trial outcomes among co-enrolled and non-co-enrolled patients.Among 3,746 patients enrolled in PROTECT (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial), 713 (19.0%) were co-enrolled in at least one other study (53.6% in a randomized trial, 37.0% in an observational study and 9.4% in both). Six factors independently associated with co-enrollment (all P < 0.001) were illness severity (odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.53 for each 10-point Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score increase), substitute decision-makers providing consent, rather than patients (OR 3.31, 2.03 to 5.41), experience of persons inviting consent (OR 2.67, 1.74 to 4.11 for persons with > 10 years' experience compared to persons with none), center size (all ORs > 10 for ICUs with > 15 beds), affiliation with trials groups (OR 5.59, 3.49 to 8.95), and main trial rather than pilot phase (all ORs > 8 for recruitment year beyond the pilot). Co-enrollment did not influence clinical or trial outcomes or risk of adverse events.Co-enrollment was strongly associated with features of the patients, research personnel, setting and study. Co-enrollment had no impact on trial results, and appeared safe, acceptable and feasible. Transparent reporting, scholarly discourse, ethical analysis and further research are needed on the complex topic of co-enrollment during critical illness.Clinical trials are essential to improve care and reduce morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Some critically ill patients are eligible for more than one study. Restricting enrollment to only one study when patients are eligible for more than one is a potentially modifiable barrier to recruitment [1]. Testing two interventions concurrently can b
%U http://ccforum.com/content/17/1/R1